Community

I hope you were able to watch the simulcast of the 3 hour long hearing that took place two weeks ago. If not, it will air again every Thursday until August 11th, 2011; that night they will simulcast the next ZBA hearing, in case you can't make it. Channel 20 Cablevision in Yorktown [that includes us up here in Mohegan Lake :)].

Here's two sequential excerpts from the last hearing.



I would like to note that while FBC certainly has a special community distinct and apart from the Mohegan Highlands Property Owners Association, they are also--de jure--a part of our community as well.



Mrs. Gordon spoke most directly to the concern over the proposed zoning variances: there are too many cars and not enough parking--even after two single family homes are converted to part of the church and a parking lot. This has nothing to do with the proposed new development being a church or its people. This has everything to do with zoning, planning and a unique, lake/hill-side community. More on that later.

June 23rd, 2011: Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing on FBC's 5 Variances

[The orange words below are links to additional information]

At tonight's Planning Board working session, it was confirmed by Joseph C. Riina of Site Design Consultants of Yorktown and Albert A. Capellini, Esq. (former Yorktown Town supervisor) that the developer did not notify several of the legally interested parties of their previous application for 3 zoning variances (2 major and 1 minor). This was cited as the reason for the revocation. Mr. Capellini basically stated that the applicant didn't know that they owned property that had frontage on Lakeside Drive. It's a steep hill, but, seriously? There is a survey in the file that clearly labels "Lakeside Drive."

Sadly, they also confirmed that the retaining walls proposed under the new zoning board application with 5 variances (3 major, 2 minor) were not new and were actually a part of the original application [note: the two additional variances are compounded in that the 10 foot encroachment into a required 12 foot side yard will also be nearly 3 times the legal limit for a retaining walls].

Retaining walls will be used to level an incredibly steep hill-- a hill the town is charged with preserving; oh, and did I mention the parking lot and retaining walls requiring MAJOR variances are replacing a single family house? We are up to 3 major variances and 2 minor to make this happen; that's a 3 fold increase from what was presented about 3 months ago.

That means that these preeminent professionals either missed, or intentionally omitted the two biggest zoning variances. It should be noted at this point that the project could move forward with no variances whatsoever. Therefore, it's disturbing that the developer is proposing such radical deviations from laws enacted to preserve the few remaining low-density, single family neighborhoods and the steep slopes that make them so unique.

What amazes me, personally, is that the developer's team repeatedly cites the unique slope of the site and the challenges that it presents, but not a single section through the hill exists; please do share. Add to that, the near dismissal of the "interested parties" (that's a legal term and refers to you, Lakeside Drive) in the ZBA application are the ones most affected by the proposal and I'm scared.

The Planning Board ultimately recommended the application be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 23rd at Yorktown Town Hall @ 7:30pm. We can make ourselves heard; if we don't, my family and tax dollars are out of here. I'll donate my house (immediately adjacent the development) to the church for parking. At that point we'll have solid precedent for giant retaining walls encroaching 90% into required rear yards in Mohegan lake and they'll be able to provide the parking to sustain this monstrosity.


Take it away, Joni Mitchell:

The Ugly Duckling

Good news: our swans are doing well in their nest across the street from FBC. If all goes well we should see a cygnet soon.


It's important to note that their nest is in the Town of Yorktown lot that, under the proposal, must be remediated to offset the net increase to the impervious surfaces on site (e.g. concrete and asphalt).

They propose to offset this adverse action by snuffing out the invasive species (phragmites) and planting native seeds. Great, but I'd like to point out that the entire area has not succumb to phragmites. More than half of that lot is already native plants, or lake, which is where our swans nest.

Also, I would like to point out that FBC already increased, without filing for approval and obtaining the required permits, to increase the amount impervious surfaces on the site. Let's just keep that in mind as we start this horse trade.

I present the below without commentary (it's already on the photo); click on image to embiggen:

Secrets Of Zoning

Click on the image below, to embiggen.
The above image is from the application on file with Yorktown's Zoning Board of Appleals, less the red lines and red text--which are mine. For the record: the height variance they are seeking is for "37 feet where 35 is required."

To give you a sense of scale, the standard distance between streets in the standard Manhattan grid, is 200'-10". 46 feet is ample room to fit four occupiable floors. Therefore, ZBA member Bob Fahey is not incorrect in stating it's a "4 story building." It is as high as a four story structure.

I challenge you, gentle reader, to find a building 46 feet in height or greater, inside the limits of the sleepy hamlet of Mohegan Lake. Post your answer in the comments and the first correct--verifiable answer wins brunch with me at Thyme.

As their attorney will tell it, this is a "modest," "pretty" development with "vast benefits" for the community. Not the community of Mohegan Lake, my friends.

"wiith the exception of the rear yard..." -Al Capellini

It's still unclear how any part of the variance will be "of vast benefit for the community," or "very, very pleasing," aesthetically speaking.

Talking point: the development presupposes a new sewer connection. The developer proposes a private sewer connection, with no provisions for additional load from the community behind the new development.

It would seem prudent--at a minimum--to at least size the infrastructure to accept additional sewage load for the community it serves. This not only benefits the community, but also the health of the lake by allowing households to abandon septic systems.

Comments from the community are welcome below.